From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | ah(at)cybertec(dot)at |
Cc: | michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: MarkBufferDirtyHint() and LSN update |
Date: | 2019-11-12 12:31:34 |
Message-ID: | 20191112.213134.79258097595612929.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Mon, 11 Nov 2019 10:03:14 +0100, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote in
> Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> > Does something like the attached patch make sense? Reviews are
> > welcome.
>
> This looks good to me.
I have a qustion.
The current code assumes that !BM_DIRTY means that the function is
dirtying the page. But if !BM_JUST_DIRTIED, the function actually is
going to re-dirty the page even if BM_DIRTY.
If this is correct, the trigger for stats update is not !BM_DIRTY but
!BM_JUST_DIRTIED, or the fact that we passed the line of
XLogSaveBufferForHint() could be the trigger, regardless whether the
LSN is valid or not.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ranier Vilela | 2019-11-12 13:07:04 | [PATCH][BUG_FIX] Potential null pointer dereferencing. |
Previous Message | Asif Rehman | 2019-11-12 12:07:14 | Re: WIP/PoC for parallel backup |